Election of Clinton Is Reshaping Debate Over Family Planning

The election of a Democratic President who supports abortion rights
has dramatically transformed the dynamics of the debate over federal
abortion and family-planning policy.

With the threat of a Presidential veto gone, Congress is poised to
vote before summer on several bills that would boost funding for
family-planning clinics, strengthen abortion rights, and fund
sex-education programs--actions that could affect millions of
teenagers.

And, while lawmakers will be forced to take sides on a host of
controversial questions in connection with those debates, parental
involvement in a minor's decision to terminate a pregnancy is likely to
be a particularly critical issue in every one of them.

Currently, 11 states are enforcing laws that either require a minor
to notify a parent or require doctors to obtain parental consent before
an abortion can be performed.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state consent laws are
constitutional if they allow minors to apply for an exemption through
the courts.

It appears that Congress's first major abortion-related votes may
come on the "freedom of choice act,'' the linchpin of abortion-rights
advocates' efforts to roll back conservative abortion policies. The
bill is slated for a vote in the House Judiciary Committee this week,
and is likely to receive floor consideration this spring.

The bill would explicitly establish a woman's right to obtain an
abortion. Supporters say it simply codifies Roe v. Wade, the High Court
decision that legalized abortion in 1973. Opponents say it goes far
beyond that by barring most state restrictions on abortions, including
some restrictions--such as parental-consent laws and mandatory waiting
periods for minors--that were later upheld by the Supreme Court.

Parental Involvement at Issue

Lawmakers on both sides of the abortion issue are expected to
propose amendments that would allow some restrictions, and parental
involvement is certain to be addressed.

Some abortion-rights advocates oppose any amendments that would
restrict a woman's right to choose.

"These bills mandate healthy family communication, and sometimes
that doesn't exist,'' Sarah Pines, a spokeswoman for the National
Abortion Rights Action League, said of parent-involvement statutes.

Alternative procedures that allow minors fearful of notifying
parents to obtain permission through the courts are not adequate
protection, some argue, because they disproportionately benefit
well-educated, middle-class women.

Conservative supporters of consent laws argue that families are
informed when their child has other medical treatments and that
abortion should not be exempted.

"When any kind of medical procedure is done on a child, the parent
should be notified,'' said Elizabeth Law, the executive director of the
Family Research Council, who called possible parental-consent mandates
in the bill "icing on a rotten cake.''

Supporters Debate Strategy

Some bill supporters believe that parental-notification language may
be the strategic compromise that could ultimately insure passage.

Regardless of their own position, most observers agree that laws
requiring parental involvement in minors' abortion decisions enjoy
particularly broad public support. In a survey conducted by the Center
for Population Options, a family-planning research group, 60 percent of
the respondents said they believe abortion should be legal and
available, but 70 percent also supported parental-consent laws.

In addition, President Clinton has backed parental notification.

"The bill will not pass without parental notification,'' Rep. Barney
Frank, D-Mass, said in an interview this month. "That simply will not
happen in the real world.''

"The danger was a coalition of some on the left who wanted a pure
bill and some on the right who wanted no bill,'' said Mr. Frank, a
member of the Judiciary Committee. "Now everybody understands.''

Indeed, when the measure was approved by the Subcommittee on Civil
and Constitutional Rights on March 18, abortion opponents voted for an
amendment offered by supporters of the bill to remove language allowing
states to enact parental-involvement laws.

The version of the bill approved by the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee on March 24 contains that language.

Despite Mr. Frank's assertion of unity among abortion-rights
advocates, the issue is far from settled in either chamber.

Many lawmakers are preparing parental-involvement amendments,
ranging from strict requirements that states enact consent laws to
amendments requiring states that wish to do so insure that a judicial
alternative exists.

Under Senate rules, debate and amendments are essentially unlimited.
But supporters of the measure face a strategic decision in the
House.

If the bill is approved by the full Judiciary Committee--where more
proposed amendments are expected--it would move to the House floor,
where the parameters for debate are set by the Rules Committee.

Some abortion-rights supporters want to ask for a rule that bars all
amendments, or one that allows only strategic amendments offered by
proponents of the bill. But many Republicans who support abortion
rights have reportedly said they would join opponents in voting against
such a closed rule, thereby blocking consideration of the bill.

If amendments are allowed, some proponents fear the House might vote
for such provisions as a waiting period or strict parental-consent
requirements.

The House leadership has not divulged its plans.

More Abortion Battlegrounds

Teenagers' access to abortion and family planning is also expected
to be an issue in the debate over a variety of other measures,
including:

Health-care reform. There is widespread speculation that the
health-care proposal that Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to
unveil next month will likely include coverage for comprehensive
family-planning services. Some Congressional sources predict that the
Administration's biggest battle over abortion will concern its
treatment in the Administration plan.

Teenagers' access to abortion and family-planning services could
also become an issue in the overall health-care debate.

Title X. The primary federal family-planning program has been
operating without formal authorization since 1985 as a result of
disputes over whether Title X clinics should be able to refer
patients for abortions.

President Clinton has already repealed the so-called "gag rule,''
and Congress is expected to approve legislation reauthorizing Title
X.

The House approved a reauthorization bill in March, which would
return to pre-Reagan requirements that clinics counsel women on all
their options. It would also increase the program's funding ceiling.
The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee approved an identical
bill on May 5, and floor action is expected soon.

Observers say senators are likely to offer amendments requiring
parental notification before Title X clinics can refer minors for
abortions.

Teenagers represent about a third of the clientele at the 4,000
federally funded family-planning clinics currently operating.

President Clinton has requested $500 million for the program in
fiscal 1994, a 25 percent increase.

Title XX, the so-called "chastity act.'' Some observers had
predicted that President Clinton would propose scrapping the
controversial program, which provides research and education grants
to develop curricula that promote adoption and abstinence from sexual
intercourse before marriage. (See Education Week, March 24,
1993.)

But Mr. Clinton requested $7.5 million in his 1994 budget for the
Adolescent Family Life Act, lending credence to speculation that the
Administration will instead propose restructuring the program.

Title XX has often been tied legislatively to Title X, and has also
been operating without formal authorization.

But Congressional aides say lawmakers are unlikely to take up the
issue until next year, meaning that any Congressional debate on the
program's merits would come in budget negotiations.

The Hyde amendment. Since 1976, a rider has been included in the
appropriations bill that provides funds for the departments of labor,
education, and health and human services that bans Medicaid funding
for abortion services. In recent years, however, the provision was
added only after a bill without it was vetoed.

President Clinton has called for abolishing the provision on the
grounds that it unfairly restricts poor women from seeking abortion. He
has not explicitly said whether he would propose simply removing the
amendment--which would effectively require Medicaid programs to provide
abortion--or whether he would favor a provision allowing states to
determine their own policies.

But Mr. Clinton did insert a footnote in his budget that says he
"will work with Congress to facilitate an approach that is consistent
with both federal and state law.''

The provision will likely be stripped completely in the House, but a
compromise regarding states' rights is likely in the Senate, said an
aide to Rep. William H. Natcher, D-Ky., the chairman of the House
Appropriation Committee.

If Congress approves legislation allowing even limited federal
funding for abortion, some lawmakers may propose amendments requiring
parental involvement when those abortions are sought by minors.

For example, Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr., R-Va., is expected to
reintroduce a bill that would require programs that receive federal
funds and offer abortion services to notify at least one parent of a
minor.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.